Gun attack at Christmas market, Strasbourg.

weldoninhio

Grayson wrote: »

You want to imprison families? People who may have no knowledge of something and have done nothing at all?

Yes, internment, until they are fully investigated and the authorities are 100% certain that they have not supported/helped their family member.

Zorya

Grayson wrote: »

Here you go https://muslimscondemn.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2017/mar/26/muslims-condemn-terrorism-stats

Good.

It's not a battle, to score points. It's a conversation on something terrible that is happening in real life, with people having different perspectives. It's not a nenenenene sort of affair.

There are silly contributions, for sure, that verge on hate speech, but it's like when you go to any protest you will be guaranteed to be mass-leafleted about irrelevant stuff from serious-looking, very angry, nervy young people pushing their magazines and a marginal political agenda, and you just put the leaflets in the bin and carry on.

Omackeral

SnakePlissken wrote: »

You'll soon get the usual suspects harping on about how shameful this thread is as it's just an outlet for some to revel in their supposed "Islamophobia".

BBFAN wrote: »

Your point is not made by quoting me without quoting the aholes I'm answering to. Shame on you.

You weren't wrong anyway Snake. I'd say I've probably got among the most level headed posts on this thread and yet shame is still cast upon me. It seems in some poster's minds that if you're not 100% with us, you're against us. Very terroristy, actually.

yoke

weldoninhio wrote: »

Yes, internment, until they are fully investigated and the authorities are 100% certain that they have not supported/helped their family member.

That worked well for the British when they did it against people with links to Ireland who lived in England, didn’t it.

I mean, they definitely caught the Guildford 4 and the Maguire 7 using those techniques, it’s definitely the right response which in the past has been proven since it completely stopped the IRA in its tracks.
Northern Ireland never had to include republicans in the peace process and address (at least some) of their underlying issues to finally gain a somewhat lasting peace.

As some other posters talking sense here have said already, we need to find out what is radicalising young people of foreign descent in these countries and stop it - ironically what is probably needed is less racism (rather than more) where the young people of foreign descent identify as “Irish” rather than “middle eastern” or whatever as well as taking a good look at why we allow religious schools to fill young people’s heads with ****e.

weldoninhio

yoke wrote: »

That worked well for the British when they did it against people with links to Ireland who lived in England, didn’t it.

I mean, they definitely caught the Guildford 4 and the Maguire 7 using those techniques, it’s definitely the right response which in the past has been proven since it completely stopped the IRA and Northern Ireland never had to include them in the peace process and address at least some of their underlying issues to finally gain a somewhat lasting peace

They were never "interned".

They were framed, and false evidence and forced confessions used to arrest and try them. Not sure you know what internment is.

Edit: Also, republicans had an end goal. Something that's needed in a negotiation. These jihadi's end goal is the destruction of the infidel west.

DS86DS

DS86DS wrote: »

The Religion of Peace strikes again.

But which part of the Muslim religion?

This is the issue I have. Why not start identifying as Shia, Sunni or whatever other sects there are? I don’t think many outsiders know that there are different ones.

I don’t class myself as Christian if asked, I would say catholic. If someone is a baptist, I think they’d say that. Why, if asked do Muslim say they are Muslim even though they are a certain sect?

I think it could go a long way to narrowing down what sect is responsible for the terrorist attacks and outsiders (like me) could have a better understanding.

seamus

Omackeral wrote: »

There's a theme with these atrocities more often than not but don't you dare say what it is...

Right. Poverty, discrimination, isolation and poor education.

The same reason why virtually every terrorist everywhere, including IRA members, comes from a background of being dirt poor, treated like **** by the authorities (and often society), and finding no kinship in anything except violence.

Omackeral

seamus wrote: »

Right. Poverty, discrimination, isolation and poor education.

It's all our fault isn't it. Discrimination, would you give me a break?! Violent religious zealot scumbags is what they are. I won't name the religion lest I be labelled an ******phobe

Ah, I see the IRA comparisons are starting now too. Expected those earlier.

Grayson

Omackeral wrote: »

You weren't wrong anyway Snake. I'd say I've probably got among the most level headed posts on this thread and yet shame is still cast upon me. It seems in some poster's minds that if you're not 100% with us, you're against us. Very terroristy, actually.

To be fair everyone thinks what they're saying is sensible, unless they're a troll.

And you're saying that if someone disagrees with you they're terroristy? Has anyone here attacked anyone physically? have they blown up anything? Or is that just hyperbole?

granturismo

Omackeral wrote: »

As is often the case in these attacks. 2nd and 3rd generation scumbuckets causing havoc. People saying "send them back" are at nothing because they're from the countries that they're attacking in a lot of instances. However, pretending that they're dyed-in-the-wool proud Frenchmen is also burying your head in the sand. There's a theme with these atrocities more often than not but don't you dare say what it is...

I wasnt burying my head in the sand, nor trying to differentiate between the birthplace of a murderer in order to rationalise their motivation. I was simply pointing out an error in a post which seemed to suggest that the shooter was a recent arrival in Europe.

Grayson

Zorya wrote: »

Good.

It's not a battle, to score points. It's a conversation on something terrible that is happening in real life, with people having different perspectives. It's not a nenenenene sort of affair.

There are silly contributions, for sure, that verge on hate speech, but it's like when you go to any protest you will be guaranteed to be mass-leafleted about irrelevant stuff from serious-looking, very angry, nervy young people pushing their magazines and a marginal political agenda, and you just put the leaflets in the bin and carry on.

There are times when I think all the people here who are virulently anti mulsim have never met a muslim. There's no-one on this thread who doesn't think that islamic terrorism is wrong. It's just the idea that because some terrorists are muslim it means that all muslims are the problem. They apply standards to mulsims that they wouldn't apply to anyone else.

pjohnson

Omackeral wrote: »

As is often the case in these attacks. 2nd and 3rd generation scumbuckets causing havoc. People saying "send them back" are at nothing because they're from the countries that they're attacking in a lot of instances. However, pretending that they're dyed-in-the-wool proud Frenchmen is also burying your head in the sand. There's a theme with these atrocities more often than not but don't you dare say what it is...

Ah now its not like its rape. Fire away.

yoke

weldoninhio wrote: »

They were never "interned".

They were framed, and false evidence and forced confessions used to arrest and try them. Not sure you know what internment is.

Edit: Also, republicans had an end goal. Something that's needed in a negotiation. These jihadi's end goal is the destruction of the infidel west.

Do you know what internment is?

internment:
the state of being confined as a prisoner, especially for political or military reasons.

Republicans had an end goal which was unacceptable to the British people.
The British looked at why young northern Irish people were becoming republicans, and addressed the source of the problem (admittedly, the process isn’t complete and Northern Ireland is still not great regarding sectarianism, but better than it was).

Maybe we should be looking at what is fueling the rise of young people of foreign descent in countries like France and Germany and Sweden in taking up radical Islam or similar stupid ideologies which actually mirror the ideologies of who they hate (hint: all 3 countries have major problems with racism)

Omackeral

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair everyone thinks what they're saying is sensible, unless they're a troll.

Go back through my posts if you wish. I try to be balanced. I don't say "deport them all" or "ban religion" or "all Muslims".

And you're saying that if someone disagrees with you they're terroristy?

Nope, I'm saying that about other people on here who seem very intolerant to any views that dissent from their outlook. They seek to shut down debate and discourse by shouting others down. Maybe fascist is a better descriptor. There's an irony to it.

Omackeral

granturismo wrote: »

I wasnt burying my head in the sand, nor trying to differentiate between the birthplace of a murderer in order to rationalise their motivation. I was simply pointing out an error in a post which seemed to suggest that the shooter was a recent arrival in Europe.

Wasn't directed at you personally granturismo.

Omackeral

Grayson wrote: »

. It's just the idea that because some terrorists are muslim it means that all muslims are the problem.

I've no qualms about saying this. Anyone who thinks the above is an absolute dumb fcuk.

begbysback

emptyhouse2222 wrote: »

more marxist pscyho babble

the people who are afraid are in Strasbourg

Marxist lol - way off the mark chief, I just have a profound dislike for scaremongering, whether that be amongst Muslims or Christians - it leads to the same outcome

I’m sure the bereaved in Strasbourg will be comforted by your personal campaign

CrankyHaus

FTA69 wrote: »

Well that argument works both ways, that when we had Yugoslavia people got on relatively grand and it was the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the introduction of competing nationalisms that f*cked everything up. I mean it's not a perfect example by any means at all, but Balkan Muslims were a good example of how it can and should be done. I was in Albania and Montenegro in November and for the first time now in Tirana you see women walking around in niqabs etc, all directly related to radical mosques and madrasahs funded by Erdogan's Turkey. I spoke with Montenegrin Muslims who are deeply suspicious of Wahabbists now coming in and telling them they need to be wary of neighbours they've lived amongst for 500 years.

As for religious freedoms. Lots of countries have a secular education system and no faith schools, it's in no way a breach of someone's human rights to have state schooling. Religious freedom doesn't automatically extend to being able to bring off a load of kids and fill their heads with whatever you like.

The same foreign funded radicalisation of Muslims happened in Chechnya in the 90s and really has been happening across the muslim world for decades. The funding for it tends to come from UK allies like Saudi, the Gulf States and Pakistan, and now NATO bulwark Turkey as well.

Yugoslavia is a poor advertisement for multiculturalism if a dictator and an apparatus of repression were required to keep ethnic strife under wraps.

In Ireland we have state provision for seperate religious schools both because of the Catholic Church wanting to control education and a need to not alienate the Protestant minority after independence (i think there is a constitutional basis for this, I can't remember). This puts us in a bad position to integrate immigrants of different religions in state secular schools, particularly Muslims, even though i agree it is the best policy.

With regards to what people are saying about internment. It is a reasonable tactic, if used sparingly and proportionately. We used it successfully in ROI in WW2 because we remembered this. The British became the IRA's recruiting sergeant in NI in the 1970s because they forgot it and simply kidnapped and tortured large numbers of young catholic men based on lists provided by the loyalist authorities.

RandomName2

seamus wrote: »

Right. Poverty, discrimination, isolation and poor education.

The same reason why virtually every terrorist everywhere, including IRA members, comes from a background of being dirt poor, treated like **** by the authorities (and often society), and finding no kinship in anything except violence.

Really? That sounds more like a misconception than anything

https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/online-articles/reexamining-terrorism-poverty-nexus
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9343/terrorism-poverty-despair
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fnews%2fwonk%2fwp%2f2015%2f11%2f18%2fwhy-less-poverty-and-more-schools-wouldnt-cut-down-on-terrorism%2f%3f&utm_term=.307b25e61ff5
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2010/12/16/exploding-misconceptions

ArchXStanton

They were quick to shut up the EU buildings during this incident... Can't have the stuffed shirts and their disastrous policies in harms way..

Danzy

Mainstream mosques across Europe preach views that would make ones blood curl, host speakers that call for violence, wife beating, gay bashing, targeting Jews.

Some people pretend the main Mosques are fine and it is all down to back street mosques in a house.

Franz Von Peppercorn

"yoke wrote: »

Maybe we should be looking at what is fueling the rise of young people of foreign descent in countries like France and Germany and Sweden in taking up radical Islam or similar stupid ideologies which actually mirror the ideologies of who they hate (hint: all 3 countries have major problems with racism)

That’s victim blaming. It also doesn’t really explain why it’s one particular group (generally radicalised Muslims) rather than Hindus, Chinese, Eastern Europeans, Africans, South Americans, even (in general) Turks in Germany that end up being responsible for these attacks. Nor are all the attackers poor.

If western society is, however, so racist as to incite violence from immigrants from certain areas then maybe some levels of immigration control are necessary.

topper75

seamus wrote: »

Right. Poverty, discrimination, isolation and poor education.

The same reason why virtually every terrorist everywhere, including IRA members, comes from a background of being dirt poor, treated like **** by the authorities (and often society), and finding no kinship in anything except violence.

Lord you know a lot about this chap on the run. Thought about calling the French police?

Did he have someone put out the arm on him when he tried to go to school.

How was he isolated? How was he discriminated against? Many are poor in France - this scumbag doesn't represent poverty. How were people shopping in a Christmas market responsible for his poverty if indeed he was poor?

You can't claim discrimination when in fact many of his type are actively refusing to integrate into western society yet insisting on living in the west. The discrimination is all theirs. That blood on the road is all spilled by them - directly by them. Obfuscation is helping nobody.

Franz Von Peppercorn

RandomName2 wrote: »

Really? That sounds more like a misconception than anything

https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/online-articles/reexamining-terrorism-poverty-nexus
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9343/terrorism-poverty-despair
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fnews%2fwonk%2fwp%2f2015%2f11%2f18%2fwhy-less-poverty-and-more-schools-wouldnt-cut-down-on-terrorism%2f%3f&utm_term=.307b25e61ff5
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2010/12/16/exploding-misconceptions

It’s obviously not even true of the IRA, who had a considerable following amongst the farmer and self employed classes. However they tended to be more working class than the vast majority of leftist radicals. As for Islamic radicals, often middle class or rich, particularly if they are from outside Europe - the 9/11 guys were all fairly privileged.

As for poverty on its own causing terrorism, I don’t see that being used to justify white terrorism, many of whom are indeed poor.

seamus

Omackeral wrote: »

It's all our fault isn't it.

Nobody said that.

Just because someone else is isolated, doesn't make it your fault. People are sh1t, that's the universal rule. But if we make an effort to make people less sh1t, then everyone benefits.

Ah, I see the IRA comparisons are starting now too. Expected those earlier.

It's completely relevant though. From the perspective of most outside of Ireland, the IRA were just violent Catholic zealots.
Your response to that is, "It's way more complicated than that!". And you're right. It's always more complicated than that. Just like this is.

We can wander around all day shouting about how violent Islam is - because it is, but then so are all of the Abrahamic religions. But unless you're going to talk about interning/banning/deporting all Muslims, even those who are no risk, than the point is moot.

People turn to ideologies which most fit their worldview. They don't change their worldview to fit the ideology. Violent people turn to violent religious extremism. Airy-fairy people turn to homeopathy and other bullsh1t science.

Islam is not the problem. If it wasn't Islam, it would be something else. Should we pretend that Mosques and other Islamic centres aren't rife with this at the moment? Of course not, because they are. They are a magnet for angry young men, and people who seek to exploit them.

Should we be targetting Islam as a whole and seeking to exterminate it or regulate it? Well, no. Because that makes the problem worse. There is nothing quite so dangerous as an animal that's cornered. We've learned the lesson many many times that when you try to suppress a religion, its followers become violent and angry. You can, however, moderate it out of existence by improving living conditions.

And even if you did exterminate Islam, some other nutjob religious practice would take its place to serve as an ideology for angry and violent people.

weldoninhio

yoke wrote: »

Do you know what internment is?

internment:
the state of being confined as a prisoner, especially for political or military reasons.

Republicans had an end goal which was unacceptable to the British people.
The British looked at why young northern Irish people were becoming republicans, and addressed the source of the problem (admittedly, the process isn’t complete and Northern Ireland is still not great regarding sectarianism, but better than it was).

Maybe we should be looking at what is fueling the rise of young people of foreign descent in countries like France and Germany and Sweden in taking up radical Islam or similar stupid ideologies which actually mirror the ideologies of who they hate (hint: all 3 countries have major problems with racism)

Operation Demetrius was a British Army operation in Northern Ireland on 9–10 August 1971, during the Troubles. It involved the mass arrest and internment (imprisonment without trial) of 342 people suspected of being involved with the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which was waging a campaign for a united Ireland against the British state.

The Guilford 4 and the Maguire 7 had a very public trial.

As someone posted before in another thread, if you look at the North of England Hindus are economically successful and well-integrated. They started arriving en-masse around the same time as other people from around India. Why have they integrated so much better? Did English people in the 70s really know or care much about the difference between Hidus and Muslims, or enough to treat one group badly and by implication another group really well?

Franz Von Peppercorn

CrankyHaus wrote: »

The same foreign funded radicalisation of Muslims happened in Chechnya in the 90s and really has been happening across the muslim world for decades. The funding for it tends to come from UK allies like Saudi, the Gulf States and Pakistan, and now NATO bulwark Turkey as well.

This is closer to the truth. Our allies the US have a lot to answer for.

FTA69

CrankyHaus wrote: »

The same foreign funded radicalisation of Muslims happened in Chechnya in the 90s and really has been happening across the muslim world for decades. The funding for it tends to come from UK allies like Saudi, the Gulf States and Pakistan, and now NATO bulwark Turkey as well.

Yugoslavia is a poor advertisement for multiculturalism if a dictator and an apparatus of repression were required to keep ethnic strife under wraps.

In Ireland we have state provision for seperate religious schools both because of the Catholic Church wanting to control education and a need to not alienate the Protestant minority after independence (i think there is a constitutional basis for this, I can't remember). This puts us in a bad position to integrate immigrants of different religions in state secular schools, particularly Muslims, even though i agree it is the best policy.
.

Ah Tito was sound as a pound. In all seriousness though people I met, young and old, had a good fondness for him. As I said, it’s not the world’s best example, what I’m trying to get across is that “multiculturalism” is grand when it’s as a part of a wider civic identity and that people should be encouraged to integrate and work for the common good.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

It's completely relevant though. From the perspective of most outside of Ireland, the IRA were just violent Catholic zealots.

Difference being that the stated aims and motivations of Islamic terrorists come from Islam and hatred of Kafir. So perception =/= reality.

Your response to that is, "It's way more complicated than that!". And you're right. It's always more complicated than that. Just like this is.

Yet all of it has one thing in common. So why should we continue to accept it. Allowing more in, allowing more money in, allowing hate speech with some hand-wringing, dismissing valid concerns (and those proved true) is accepting it.